|
Post by Northy on Jan 21, 2020 18:36:37 GMT
Drought, then Fires, then storms, hail and floods, all followed by a huge sandstorm, it's like a biblical story from 2000 years ago, only it's waltzing matilda and not the 3 wise men
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 21, 2020 19:29:39 GMT
Don't worry it's just scare mongering, Trump says so.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 21, 2020 19:41:53 GMT
Drought, then Fires, then storms, hail and floods, all followed by a huge sandstorm, it's like a biblical story from 2000 years ago, only it's waltzing matilda and not the 3 wise men Reminds me of that old joke... Q. Why wasn’t Jesus born in Australia? A. Because there weren’t any wise men or virgins
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 22, 2020 20:59:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 23, 2020 8:10:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crowey on Jan 25, 2020 11:07:27 GMT
.... no problems with water up here - I suppose everyone from down south will be relocating. However, rather have a cylone than a fire (we’ve had two Cat 5 cyclones since 2005)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2020 11:18:20 GMT
We're not overpopulated, we're over consuming. There is plenty to go around. And to do so sustainably is also very possible.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 25, 2020 11:24:30 GMT
We're not overpopulated, we're over consuming. There is plenty to go around. And to do so sustainably is also very possible. We disagree on this one Lil, much too many people for the planet's resources and growing . More people, more consumption. I don't think it is VERY possible in reality you be sustainable...in fact if anything those people in developing countries will strive to consume as much as the west. And when you say " plenty to go round" ..I don't think it is about what's best for human survival( I don't think that you are saying that, but I want to make the point) I agree entirely with Chris Packham in this programme www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000dl6q/horizon-2020-1-chris-packham-77-billion-people-and-countingI don't know what the answer is though.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2020 11:33:03 GMT
We're not overpopulated, we're over consuming. There is plenty to go around. And to do so sustainably is also very possible. We disagree on this one Lil, much too many people for the planet's resources and growing . More people, more consumption. I don't think it is VERY possible in reality you be sustainable...in fact if anything those people in developing countries will strive to consume as much as the west. And when you say " plenty to go round" ..I don't think it is about what's best for human survival( I don't think that you are saying that, but I want to make the point) I agree entirely with Chris Packham in this programme www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000dl6q/horizon-2020-1-chris-packham-77-billion-people-and-countingI don't know what the answer is though. You can fit the entire world's population on the Isle of Man. There's nowhere near a level of 'overcrowding'. What we do have an issue with is overconsumption. We need to come to terms with the fact that we can't carry on hoarding everything in the West, or indeed in the hands of those with the most power elsewhere. There is plenty of food, water, land, shelter, healthcare access, to go around easily. Unfortunately we look at a TV screen showing famine in Africa, and whilst throwing away half a burger from last night's takeaway, we say 'there are way too many people on this planet.' We have a sick feeling, almost always subconsciously, I'm not blaming people here, that we 'deserve' to be fed well, watered and live in shelter, whereas others who are unlucky enough to not have that privilege are 'hangers on' who are some sort of excess on the world that we can't afford to sustain. I wonder if that is such a widespread thought among those who are living in famine/drought conditions?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 25, 2020 11:55:55 GMT
We disagree on this one Lil, much too many people for the planet's resources and growing . More people, more consumption. I don't think it is VERY possible in reality you be sustainable...in fact if anything those people in developing countries will strive to consume as much as the west. And when you say " plenty to go round" ..I don't think it is about what's best for human survival( I don't think that you are saying that, but I want to make the point) I agree entirely with Chris Packham in this programme www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000dl6q/horizon-2020-1-chris-packham-77-billion-people-and-countingI don't know what the answer is though. You can fit the entire world's population on the Isle of Man. There's nowhere near a level of 'overcrowding'. What we do have an issue with is overconsumption. We need to come to terms with the fact that we can't carry on hoarding everything in the West, or indeed in the hands of those with the most power elsewhere. There is plenty of food, water, land, shelter, healthcare access, to go around easily. Unfortunately we look at a TV screen showing famine in Africa, and whilst throwing away half a burger from last night's takeaway, we say 'there are way too many people on this planet.' We have a sick feeling, almost always subconsciously, I'm not blaming people here, that we 'deserve' to be fed well, watered and live in shelter, whereas others who are unlucky enough to not have that privilege are 'hangers on' who are some sort of excess on the world that we can't afford to sustain. I wonder if that is such a widespread thought among those who are living in famine/drought conditions? I'm not just talking about the survival of the human race nor the theory of sustainability. The entire population of the world doesn't live on the Isle of Man and in actuality mankind is having a devastating impact upon the planet ( as of course you know)....in my opinion ( and that of the charity Population matters) it is obvious that the more of us there are, the more impact we have on the planet....not just" normal" consumption and pollution, but land use, urbanisation etc. Basically I think what you are saying is too theoretical and not realistic in practice....even if you think it should be. ABOUT POPULATION MATTERS "All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder - and ultimately impossible - to solve with ever more people." – Sir David Attenborough, Population Matters patron
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2020 13:41:13 GMT
You can fit the entire world's population on the Isle of Man. There's nowhere near a level of 'overcrowding'. What we do have an issue with is overconsumption. We need to come to terms with the fact that we can't carry on hoarding everything in the West, or indeed in the hands of those with the most power elsewhere. There is plenty of food, water, land, shelter, healthcare access, to go around easily. Unfortunately we look at a TV screen showing famine in Africa, and whilst throwing away half a burger from last night's takeaway, we say 'there are way too many people on this planet.' We have a sick feeling, almost always subconsciously, I'm not blaming people here, that we 'deserve' to be fed well, watered and live in shelter, whereas others who are unlucky enough to not have that privilege are 'hangers on' who are some sort of excess on the world that we can't afford to sustain. I wonder if that is such a widespread thought among those who are living in famine/drought conditions? I'm not just talking about the survival of the human race nor the theory of sustainability. The entire population of the world doesn't live on the Isle of Man and in actuality mankind is having a devastating impact upon the planet ( as of course you know)....in my opinion ( and that of the charity Population matters) it is obvious that the more of us there are, the more impact we have on the planet....not just" normal" consumption and pollution, but land use, urbanisation etc. Basically I think what you are saying is too theoretical and not realistic in practice....even if you think it should be. ABOUT POPULATION MATTERS "All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder - and ultimately impossible - to solve with ever more people." – Sir David Attenborough, Population Matters patron I think it is far more ethically and practically viable to get mankind to live within its means than it is to lower our population. 'Lowering the population' means either a direct or indirect cull. There is no situation where we should see that as a viable option.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 25, 2020 13:48:24 GMT
I'm not just talking about the survival of the human race nor the theory of sustainability. The entire population of the world doesn't live on the Isle of Man and in actuality mankind is having a devastating impact upon the planet ( as of course you know)....in my opinion ( and that of the charity Population matters) it is obvious that the more of us there are, the more impact we have on the planet....not just" normal" consumption and pollution, but land use, urbanisation etc. Basically I think what you are saying is too theoretical and not realistic in practice....even if you think it should be. ABOUT POPULATION MATTERS "All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder - and ultimately impossible - to solve with ever more people." – Sir David Attenborough, Population Matters patron I think it is far more ethically and practically viable to get mankind to live within its means than it is to lower our population. 'Lowering the population' means either a direct or indirect cull. There is no situation where we should see that as a viable option. Good point Lil, I think that we are doomed! It is worth seeing the Packham video because he says that some of it is achievable..if you look at where and why the population is growing. Population matters says , in a letter to the United nations.... Dear Mr Guterres We, the undersigned, call on you to recognise the urgency of achieving a sustainable human population if the world is to have a reasonable chance of meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. Positive, empowering measures to allow and encourage people to choose smaller families must be at the heart of the UN's programme. Specifically, we call on you to: 1. Issue a statement expressing support for smaller families, and recognising the value of ending and reversing population growth. 2. Embed positive measures to address population in the implementation and work of existing UN frameworks and bodies, such as the SDGs, IPCC and Convention on Biodiversity. 3. Explore options for the development of an international multilateral framework to address population and demographic challenges, equitably, compassionately and effectively. But as Packham says....it is the elephant in the room.. as I said earlier I cannot think of a solution. For me though I think that we have to keep remembering that " living within our means" doesn't just mean making sure that we can feed, clothe, provide water, shelter, employ, give a meaningful life etc 10 b people, it is really about the impact of those 10b on other inhabitants of the planet and on earth itself. Perhaps the cull will come from mass warfare....someone has said that the next real war will be about water...more likely about power and control
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2020 14:01:31 GMT
I think it is far more ethically and practically viable to get mankind to live within its means than it is to lower our population. 'Lowering the population' means either a direct or indirect cull. There is no situation where we should see that as a viable option. Good point Lil, I think that we are doomed! But as Packham says....it is the elephant in the room.. as I said earlier I cannot think of a solution. For me though I think that we have to keep remembering that " living within our means" doesn't just mean making sure that we can feed, clothe, provide water, shelter, employ, give a meaningful life etc 10 b people, it is really about the impact of those 10b on other inhabitants of the planet and on earth itself. Perhaps the cull will come from mass warfare....someone has said that the next real war will be about water...more likely about power and control I have a feeling it'll be antibiotic resistance probably. It's a shame we're so averse to working together as a species, otherwise we'd have a good chance of carrying on for a long time! Unfortunately, the human nature that got us this far, being survival of the fittest and a slight selfish method of living, will probably end up making the near future the end of the road. The Earth is easily big enough to sustain 10 billion people. We know exactly what we have to do to cut Carbon emissions and stop overuse of natural resources/habitats etc. It's more about whether we do it. Personally, I think it will take riots before anyone high up does enough about this to make a real difference. That said, I don't think the public generally have the motivation or inclination to do so. We're a bit 'nice' about environmental things. Happy to give up plastic straws, but not to force real change from global Petrochem companies and governments etc.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 25, 2020 14:45:41 GMT
Good point Lil, I think that we are doomed! But as Packham says....it is the elephant in the room.. as I said earlier I cannot think of a solution. For me though I think that we have to keep remembering that " living within our means" doesn't just mean making sure that we can feed, clothe, provide water, shelter, employ, give a meaningful life etc 10 b people, it is really about the impact of those 10b on other inhabitants of the planet and on earth itself. Perhaps the cull will come from mass warfare....someone has said that the next real war will be about water...more likely about power and control I have a feeling it'll be antibiotic resistance probably. It's a shame we're so averse to working together as a species, otherwise we'd have a good chance of carrying on for a long time! Unfortunately, the human nature that got us this far, being survival of the fittest and a slight selfish method of living, will probably end up making the near future the end of the road. The Earth is easily big enough to sustain 10 billion people. We know exactly what we have to do to cut Carbon emissions and stop overuse of natural resources/habitats etc. It's more about whether we do it. Personally, I think it will take riots before anyone high up does enough about this to make a real difference. That said, I don't think the public generally have the motivation or inclination to do so. We're a bit 'nice' about environmental things. Happy to give up plastic straws, but not to force real change from global Petrochem companies and governments etc. As I say we will have to disagree on this. I believe that the amount of hima s and the growth in the amount has a massive impact upon the environment, the future of the planet, the quality of life etc. I don't think that the issue is ' can the earth sustain the human population growth' it is " Is the planet's sustainability threatened by the massive growth in human population "
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Feb 10, 2020 8:24:20 GMT
|
|